Rip Your Resume in Half and Other Things You Won't Hear from HR(resumeskills.us)
resumeskills.us
Rip Your Resume in Half and Other Things You Won't Hear from HR
http://resumeskills.us/
186 comments
Depends on the position. I've had some openings where several hundred people applied. I don't have time to read 100 resumes, so anything that filters things down is good. Other positions HR has told me there have been no applicants in 2 weeks, and we need to open up the job description somehow.
For programming positions I safely take anybody who knows how to program. It doesn't matter if you know C++ or not (we do most of our work in C++ - you can substitute any language), by the time IT gets you a computer you will know enough C++ to be left on your own. However except in the case of obviously bad jobs (anyone want to do complex merges all day - I have a job opening that is essentially that) such a job opening would give me too many resumes to read.
For programming positions I safely take anybody who knows how to program. It doesn't matter if you know C++ or not (we do most of our work in C++ - you can substitute any language), by the time IT gets you a computer you will know enough C++ to be left on your own. However except in the case of obviously bad jobs (anyone want to do complex merges all day - I have a job opening that is essentially that) such a job opening would give me too many resumes to read.
Don't read 100 resumes. Read until you get one that you think looks good.
From that, figure out your true grading criteria. What made you discard others? What sparked your interest? Write these things down.
For example, I recently got to the following criteria:
* more than 2 years in related jobs
* worked with Linux, rather than tossing it in as a keyword
* worked in a process-driven environment
* evidence of having written programs or scripts
and then a bunch of things that looked like minor positives.
Then you can hand the whole pile to a junior and ask them to reject anyone who doesn't have all the real requirements, and write down the number of minor positives on the rest. Sort by that number.
Now you have a handful of resumes, and hopefully a better understanding of what the position really is.
From that, figure out your true grading criteria. What made you discard others? What sparked your interest? Write these things down.
For example, I recently got to the following criteria:
* more than 2 years in related jobs
* worked with Linux, rather than tossing it in as a keyword
* worked in a process-driven environment
* evidence of having written programs or scripts
and then a bunch of things that looked like minor positives.
Then you can hand the whole pile to a junior and ask them to reject anyone who doesn't have all the real requirements, and write down the number of minor positives on the rest. Sort by that number.
Now you have a handful of resumes, and hopefully a better understanding of what the position really is.
How do you reconcile "too many resumes to read" with the meme that there is a massive hiring shortage?
There is an unlimited number of unqualified people who apply to almost every tech job hoping to get lucky.
Depends on the situation. My comment was over time. I've hired in recessions where there were many people looking. I've hired in good times where few people were looking. Right now my industry is going through hard times, so if somebody finds a new job I probably will not be allowed to hire a replacement.
I'm hiring for an established team. The team can teach you what you need to know so long as you are "smart and get things done" (Joel on Software) If there is only one or two people experience matters more because there are not experts to help you learn what you need to know. Even on my team we can teach you, but if we don't have to that is better yet. If my team suddenly needed to write Java - none of us know Java and so probably would limit our search to Java experts - someone to teach us.
There are also cases where there is a shortage of people willing to work for less than the market wage.
There are cases where one city has a lot of jobs, but the next city a few hundred miles away doesn't. In theory people can move to a new city but that has enough personal implications that people often will not.
I'm hiring for an established team. The team can teach you what you need to know so long as you are "smart and get things done" (Joel on Software) If there is only one or two people experience matters more because there are not experts to help you learn what you need to know. Even on my team we can teach you, but if we don't have to that is better yet. If my team suddenly needed to write Java - none of us know Java and so probably would limit our search to Java experts - someone to teach us.
There are also cases where there is a shortage of people willing to work for less than the market wage.
There are cases where one city has a lot of jobs, but the next city a few hundred miles away doesn't. In theory people can move to a new city but that has enough personal implications that people often will not.
Maybe they are actually offering market rate wages?
Some of the places that complain about not being able to find people, are offering far below market rate salaries.
Some of the places that complain about not being able to find people, are offering far below market rate salaries.
Recruiting, filtering, and screening have become a perpetuum mobile industry keeping everyone’s out. I’m getting rejection emails from junior people with clearly kimited knowledge about the technology (at least they are polite enough to send it though). I swear one more time I’ll hear about talent or IT workforce shortage.
I don't think there's a talent shortage problem, I think there's a recruiter problem.
Though they certainly aren't helping much (and in many ways are quite simply harmful), recruiters are more of a "pain signal" than a problem source as such. The deeper problem is that the whole process (or rather, the lack thereof that many companies practice) itself is so broken, on so many levels. (Or more specifically: the expectations people have from this process, on both sides of the table).
The recruiters? They're just trying to make a living - and doing the best they can with the broken models, and let's not forget, bad data presented to them - again, from both sides. To the extent that they're to "blame", it's just that through their education (read: life choices made), they just don't know any better than to simply accept the process for what it is - and try to milk it for a buck or two.
Though they certainly aren't helping much (and in many ways are quite simply harmful), recruiters are more of a "pain signal" than a problem source as such. The deeper problem is that the whole process (or rather, the lack thereof that many companies practice) itself is so broken, on so many levels. (Or more specifically: the expectations people have from this process, on both sides of the table).
The recruiters? They're just trying to make a living - and doing the best they can with the broken models, and let's not forget, bad data presented to them - again, from both sides. To the extent that they're to "blame", it's just that through their education (read: life choices made), they just don't know any better than to simply accept the process for what it is - and try to milk it for a buck or two.
>"The recruiters? They're just trying to make a living - and doing the best they can with the broken models, and let's not forget, bad data presented to them - again, from both sides."
They're doing the best they can with the broken models?
Let's step back and consider some behaviors by recruiters that almost nobody in tech will find unusual:
"Ghosting" - the practice of ignoring and stopping all communications with candidates after they have committed their time have undergone interviews.
Failing to exercise any sense of professionalism in their communications - like sending emails with spelling errors or that lack basic punctuation. One sentence emails without so much as a salutation or using "Hey," as a salutation. Details matter when someone is representing your candidacy.
Not using a calendar app to send out invites for interviews.
Reaching out to candidates to gauge their interest in a role and then never following up with them when a candidate takes the time to speak with them and expresses an interest.
The list goes on and on. These have nothing to do with unrealistic expectations or broken models. These are basic business skills, etiquette and decency.
They're doing the best they can with the broken models?
Let's step back and consider some behaviors by recruiters that almost nobody in tech will find unusual:
"Ghosting" - the practice of ignoring and stopping all communications with candidates after they have committed their time have undergone interviews.
Failing to exercise any sense of professionalism in their communications - like sending emails with spelling errors or that lack basic punctuation. One sentence emails without so much as a salutation or using "Hey," as a salutation. Details matter when someone is representing your candidacy.
Not using a calendar app to send out invites for interviews.
Reaching out to candidates to gauge their interest in a role and then never following up with them when a candidate takes the time to speak with them and expresses an interest.
The list goes on and on. These have nothing to do with unrealistic expectations or broken models. These are basic business skills, etiquette and decency.
In 2017, you'll never truly disappoint yourself if you expect about as much out of a recruiter call as you do out of a Tinder match.
Oh they quite definitely suck - even when "doing the best they can".
The spin I'm trying to put on this is -- they exist solely for one reason: to fill a vacuum. The vacuum created by the fact that both sides (mostly the employer, but also candidates) perceive that there's some value for them. Despite massive (and almost overwhelming) evidence to the contrary.
So my take is... to get to the root of the problem, focus on the vacuum, not on the dregs that rush into fill it.
Not using a calendar app to send out invites for interviews.
Or using them, but being too lazy (or just uneducated) to figure out this pesky time zone stuff.
So you're absolutely right -- the list goes on and on.
The spin I'm trying to put on this is -- they exist solely for one reason: to fill a vacuum. The vacuum created by the fact that both sides (mostly the employer, but also candidates) perceive that there's some value for them. Despite massive (and almost overwhelming) evidence to the contrary.
So my take is... to get to the root of the problem, focus on the vacuum, not on the dregs that rush into fill it.
Not using a calendar app to send out invites for interviews.
Or using them, but being too lazy (or just uneducated) to figure out this pesky time zone stuff.
So you're absolutely right -- the list goes on and on.
I worked with HR a bit. The people were the sweetest I've worked with, but the forms they had me make were full of legalese, and their procedures were algorithmic, military executions.
My theory is they are battle-scarred by a few bad apples, who crop up here and there, now and then. These employees were high maintenance, imperiled the company, even sued. As the article said, "a good part of Human Resources time is spent managing various forms of drama."
I'm not saying that if you ever sued your employer you were wrong. Since employers are people, and employees are people, both are equally capable of corruption. What I'm saying is, if everyone acted in good faith, maybe we wouldn't need HR. But the same could be said about many things in life.
My theory is they are battle-scarred by a few bad apples, who crop up here and there, now and then. These employees were high maintenance, imperiled the company, even sued. As the article said, "a good part of Human Resources time is spent managing various forms of drama."
I'm not saying that if you ever sued your employer you were wrong. Since employers are people, and employees are people, both are equally capable of corruption. What I'm saying is, if everyone acted in good faith, maybe we wouldn't need HR. But the same could be said about many things in life.
I've been a contract recruiter for most of my career, and while we could have a excellent conversation about how relatively new the recruiting function is to corporations, and how it has evolved, and where I see it going.. I have to say I am honestly offended by your statement that contract recruiters generally "They are amongst the most clueless, unprofessional and inefficient people working at these tech companies" and "has no real vested interest the process or how they represent the company"
This statement is patently absurd and offensive.
Yes, there are bad recruiters out there, as there are bad sales reps, customer service people, and even shitty engineers who leave a lot of shitty code in places it shouldn't be.
Please stop generalizing
This statement is patently absurd and offensive.
Yes, there are bad recruiters out there, as there are bad sales reps, customer service people, and even shitty engineers who leave a lot of shitty code in places it shouldn't be.
Please stop generalizing
Are you really so unaware of how bad the reputation of recruiters is in the tech industry? If so I'm afraid you might be severely out of touch.
You might note that my comment resonated with more than a few people considering its position at the top of the discussion.
>"This statement is patently absurd and offensive."
It's odd that rather than consider any merits of another's observations you instead dismiss them as "absurdity" without providing a single argument as to why.
Bad reputations evolve over time. And "recruiting" by the way is not new. It has been a staple in HR since the first dot com boom.
Your claim that there are lots of people out there who are bad at their jobs is nothing more than the moral equivalence fallacy. For someone so offended that's a pretty weak argument.
And lastly if you reread my comment you will see that I said it is not all and recognized that there are some excellent recruiters out there. Its the third sentence.
You might note that my comment resonated with more than a few people considering its position at the top of the discussion.
>"This statement is patently absurd and offensive."
It's odd that rather than consider any merits of another's observations you instead dismiss them as "absurdity" without providing a single argument as to why.
Bad reputations evolve over time. And "recruiting" by the way is not new. It has been a staple in HR since the first dot com boom.
Your claim that there are lots of people out there who are bad at their jobs is nothing more than the moral equivalence fallacy. For someone so offended that's a pretty weak argument.
And lastly if you reread my comment you will see that I said it is not all and recognized that there are some excellent recruiters out there. Its the third sentence.
[deleted]
I despise one page resumes. I want detail so I can figure out whether to bother with you or not. The only time a short resume is ok is when you have big names in your employer list, or major awards, or something. If you have Google 2005-2015 or something, you really don't need to say much more beyond what languages/technologies/libraries you used there. But for the other 99% of people, I want to hear what you worked on, in detail. I can skim through a 5 page resume just as fast as a one page resume.
edit: After reading the article fully: This person is the opposite of me. I've read hundreds of resumes, and I want depth and detail so I don't waste my time. Reading resumes is the cheapest part of the process. Just make sure your HR is sending you anything remotely decent, they should only be a very light filter.
edit: After reading the article fully: This person is the opposite of me. I've read hundreds of resumes, and I want depth and detail so I don't waste my time. Reading resumes is the cheapest part of the process. Just make sure your HR is sending you anything remotely decent, they should only be a very light filter.
Having reviewed hundreds, maybe over a thousand, resumes in the last decade- I am fully in agreement on hating one page resumes.
That being said, if it’s five pages long, I’m not reading most of it anyway.
Here’s what I care about:
- What has this person been doing the last couple of years?
- Who were they doing it for?
- Scanning their overall work history, does anything interesting (good or bad) stand out. If so, make note for the interview if we get there.
- A list of any accomplishments of note. Patents, speaking engagements, related awards, publications, etc.
I don’t care about your hobbies, your family, or your GPA.
I’m not going to reject your resume because it was too long if I can easily grep the data I’m looking for. I might reject it if it’s too short/empty though.
Because this is what I look for, I keep my resume in the same pattern. The last few years of my work history will contain way more detail. A few years out I start summarizing, 6+ years out its only really big things of note or stuff I’m especially proud of still.
I have a (small) accomplishments section after that, education last. 12 years of history, organized and summarized in about 3 pages with a lot of space.
That being said, if it’s five pages long, I’m not reading most of it anyway.
Here’s what I care about:
- What has this person been doing the last couple of years?
- Who were they doing it for?
- Scanning their overall work history, does anything interesting (good or bad) stand out. If so, make note for the interview if we get there.
- A list of any accomplishments of note. Patents, speaking engagements, related awards, publications, etc.
I don’t care about your hobbies, your family, or your GPA.
I’m not going to reject your resume because it was too long if I can easily grep the data I’m looking for. I might reject it if it’s too short/empty though.
Because this is what I look for, I keep my resume in the same pattern. The last few years of my work history will contain way more detail. A few years out I start summarizing, 6+ years out its only really big things of note or stuff I’m especially proud of still.
I have a (small) accomplishments section after that, education last. 12 years of history, organized and summarized in about 3 pages with a lot of space.
Go ahead and make a five page resume, but:
A) Make it dead simple to visually distinguish between jobs/entries.
B) Put your most important things in the first two lines, because that's all I'm reading until I decide you're worth investing time.
Also, do me a favor and collect all your keywords in one spot so I can skim them. Don't make me read line items to even figure out which technologies you've worked with.
Anyone with more than five years of experience who still does a one page resume either has done absolutely nothing useful or is cheating themselves.
A) Make it dead simple to visually distinguish between jobs/entries.
B) Put your most important things in the first two lines, because that's all I'm reading until I decide you're worth investing time.
Also, do me a favor and collect all your keywords in one spot so I can skim them. Don't make me read line items to even figure out which technologies you've worked with.
Anyone with more than five years of experience who still does a one page resume either has done absolutely nothing useful or is cheating themselves.
> I’m not going to reject your resume because it was too long if I can easily grep the data I’m looking for.
I think this is a key point. Layout and presentation are really important. Even 1 page of dense, undifferentiated text is a lot. But 3 pages of well presented, sectioned content is pretty easy to read.
I think this is a key point. Layout and presentation are really important. Even 1 page of dense, undifferentiated text is a lot. But 3 pages of well presented, sectioned content is pretty easy to read.
Totally agree. A shitty 5 page resume (and I've seen plenty) is a major turnoff. But so is a shitty 1 page resume (and I've seen even more of those!).
> Here’s what I care about: ...
> I don’t care about your hobbies, your family, or your GPA.
Do you advertise this to prospective candidates, or do you expect them to read your mind and read every other employer's mind?
> I don’t care about your hobbies, your family, or your GPA.
Do you advertise this to prospective candidates, or do you expect them to read your mind and read every other employer's mind?
> Because this is what I look for, I keep my resume in the same pattern.
That's pretty much what I do.
I essentially have two versions of my resume:
Part 1 is a single page, outlines the basics, plus the last 2 or 3 places I've worked at, etc. Just a summary format, but with enough detail for the reader to understand who I am, what I know, and what I can offer them as an employee. The next 2-3 pages are more detailed overviews of those places I've worked in the past that I listed on the summary, plus maybe a couple more.
I tell my recruiter (I work with a couple of independent recruiters from agencies) to pass along either the single page or all pages to the prospective employer, depending on what they think or know that the employer likes to read. If they are like you, they get the full thing; if not they'll get the summary.
When I go to the interview, I take a copy of my full resume, but I ask my recruiter which version they passed along first. That way I know what kind of person I'm probably dealing with in the interview. Regardless, I always make an offer of the "long form" resume, if they'd like a copy (and I take multiple copies in case I need to hand them out to others who may not have a copy).
I've never had a problem with this system. Even so, I read articles like this, and comments like the ones here on HN, and take them in stride, as I feel that my resume is a living document that can always use improvement and updating (especially as my skills expand).
That's pretty much what I do.
I essentially have two versions of my resume:
Part 1 is a single page, outlines the basics, plus the last 2 or 3 places I've worked at, etc. Just a summary format, but with enough detail for the reader to understand who I am, what I know, and what I can offer them as an employee. The next 2-3 pages are more detailed overviews of those places I've worked in the past that I listed on the summary, plus maybe a couple more.
I tell my recruiter (I work with a couple of independent recruiters from agencies) to pass along either the single page or all pages to the prospective employer, depending on what they think or know that the employer likes to read. If they are like you, they get the full thing; if not they'll get the summary.
When I go to the interview, I take a copy of my full resume, but I ask my recruiter which version they passed along first. That way I know what kind of person I'm probably dealing with in the interview. Regardless, I always make an offer of the "long form" resume, if they'd like a copy (and I take multiple copies in case I need to hand them out to others who may not have a copy).
I've never had a problem with this system. Even so, I read articles like this, and comments like the ones here on HN, and take them in stride, as I feel that my resume is a living document that can always use improvement and updating (especially as my skills expand).
It's funny, I'm the exact opposite of you. I vastly prefer one pagers and find most longer to be unnecessarily verbose.
A sister poster listed a set of bullets they like to see; accomplishments, engagements, projects (I would call this all "telling your story"). I'm of the belief that for most people, you can well and truly fit this on one page. I've gotten patents, spoken at conferences, published papers, worked from tiny contracting firms to tech behemoths, and can tersely summarize the important bits for a given interview in a page.
(I mention this to shake my head at awj's somewhat tone-deaf assertion that someone with >5 years experience and a one pager has accomplished nothing)
When I'm interviewing others I find that there's often a gap between "diminishing returns of what I can get out of a denser resume" and "the meat of really getting to know how you'll perform as an employee", and that the most difficult part for me is less filtering the former and more getting to the heart of the latter when it is at its core an extremely subjective question that one has to explore differently with each candidate.
My overall thesis re short resumes has some obvious caveats: I tailor my resume for the job in question and certainly don't enumerate all, outdated, or irrelevant accomplishments. I also don't tend to include any sort of "personal statement" or longer form in this enumeration; I'd typically consider that a cover letter if one is even applicable.
As an entertaining cap to how differently we seem to approach this, I've even been turning over the idea of condensing my resume onto a business card, and think it's situationaly very possible.
A sister poster listed a set of bullets they like to see; accomplishments, engagements, projects (I would call this all "telling your story"). I'm of the belief that for most people, you can well and truly fit this on one page. I've gotten patents, spoken at conferences, published papers, worked from tiny contracting firms to tech behemoths, and can tersely summarize the important bits for a given interview in a page.
(I mention this to shake my head at awj's somewhat tone-deaf assertion that someone with >5 years experience and a one pager has accomplished nothing)
When I'm interviewing others I find that there's often a gap between "diminishing returns of what I can get out of a denser resume" and "the meat of really getting to know how you'll perform as an employee", and that the most difficult part for me is less filtering the former and more getting to the heart of the latter when it is at its core an extremely subjective question that one has to explore differently with each candidate.
My overall thesis re short resumes has some obvious caveats: I tailor my resume for the job in question and certainly don't enumerate all, outdated, or irrelevant accomplishments. I also don't tend to include any sort of "personal statement" or longer form in this enumeration; I'd typically consider that a cover letter if one is even applicable.
As an entertaining cap to how differently we seem to approach this, I've even been turning over the idea of condensing my resume onto a business card, and think it's situationaly very possible.
Not to besmirch you, but you outline the 'problem' very well: Hiring managers are people too. This means that they also come in a variety of shapes, colors, sizes, and with personalities and preferences. Essentially, the resume is as much a filter for the candidate as for the employer. Some candidates will have long extensive CVs that will appeal to some employers, some will be a tweet's worth of content that will appeal to others. There is no way to 'win' the application/hiring process. It's more like dating than a test.
Even if "I want detailed resumes" were communicated during the first application, job advice would quickly turn into "You need a resume for each unique demand of resume type", which will likely turn into making at least 3-5 different kinds of resumes.
That makes it worse than dating and hopefully you don't choose from 3-5 versions of yourself in the closet to bring to a date.
That makes it worse than dating and hopefully you don't choose from 3-5 versions of yourself in the closet to bring to a date.
Oh jesus, you are right... I would totally do that...
[deleted]
I despise one page resumes. I want detail so I can figure out whether to bother with you or not.
It makes me wonder what sorts of things you are hiring for. Your comments make me think maybe some jobs need more depth to convey qualifications.
(I recently submitted a multipage job application and, in light of that, I am trying to decide how I feel about the comments here and also trying to make sense of them. Surely, there must be more to such preferences than personality of hiring managers.)
It makes me wonder what sorts of things you are hiring for. Your comments make me think maybe some jobs need more depth to convey qualifications.
(I recently submitted a multipage job application and, in light of that, I am trying to decide how I feel about the comments here and also trying to make sense of them. Surely, there must be more to such preferences than personality of hiring managers.)
At this point I'm mostly involved in hiring senior people (Senior Developers, Principals, Architects, etc). I definitely should modulate my claims by saying that a Junior level position is totally fine having a 1 pager, although I still like to see a couple page from them explaining what projects they've worked on.
The problem with short resumes is that it is easy to hide shallowness. While that is easy to fix in face-to-face interviews, that takes up a lot of time and $$$. If you have to give details about jobs and projects, it becomes more difficult to hide shallowness.
I once interviewed at "7 year C Developer". We brought the person in and after a bit of a chat, asked some basic interview question - build a linked list, or something. We said that you could assume you have a pointer only to the beginning of the list. The person stated, "well, I don't know much about pointers."
Interview over!
The problem with short resumes is that it is easy to hide shallowness. While that is easy to fix in face-to-face interviews, that takes up a lot of time and $$$. If you have to give details about jobs and projects, it becomes more difficult to hide shallowness.
I once interviewed at "7 year C Developer". We brought the person in and after a bit of a chat, asked some basic interview question - build a linked list, or something. We said that you could assume you have a pointer only to the beginning of the list. The person stated, "well, I don't know much about pointers."
Interview over!
I don't how your last question relates to a resume length though. I had a candidate with referral, 28 years experience and a impressive resume. All my colleagues were intimidated to ask him coding questions and he tried to weasel away from that but I insisted he do a quick C linked-list insert question and he said he didn't know much about pointers either. And things started falling apart from there. Some of these people are very good at deflecting questions and guiding the conversation so you know nothing about them in the end except what is in their stellar resumes.
It doesn't prevent lying (or "exaggerating"), but it takes more work to fill in details for a long resume, that's all.
Thank you.
How about a compromise? Submit an outline resume that fits on a single page and provide a link to a huge CV with all the details?
I really like this idea and think it could even be expanded upon. What if applications had a screening survey? You answer a set of questions, auto-scored, and based on that score your resume is accepted or rejected. There can be a box to explain why you think you are qualified which can be read for all applications to stop filtering of good but atypical applicants.
Then you can submit a large resume with that. Hiring managers get more detail but also help in screening that 1-page resumes give the benefit of.
Even better, we really should get rid of the "make your own resume idea" and come up with a standard resume format by industry. Companies can then add supplements as needed.
Then you can submit a large resume with that. Hiring managers get more detail but also help in screening that 1-page resumes give the benefit of.
Even better, we really should get rid of the "make your own resume idea" and come up with a standard resume format by industry. Companies can then add supplements as needed.
> Even better, we really should get rid of the "make your own resume idea" and come up with a standard resume format by industry. Companies can then add supplements as needed.
This would backfire terribly. As someone who's mostly done macOS development over the last 3 decades, I can't tell you how many jobs have made assumptions that all of your work was done in Windows, with Visual Studio. If there were some sort of standard format, it would make very dumb assumptions like that and I'd be unable to fill it out. Fuck it. I'd rather just submit a resume I came up with on my own. I can tailor it to the employer I'm working with easily.
This would backfire terribly. As someone who's mostly done macOS development over the last 3 decades, I can't tell you how many jobs have made assumptions that all of your work was done in Windows, with Visual Studio. If there were some sort of standard format, it would make very dumb assumptions like that and I'd be unable to fill it out. Fuck it. I'd rather just submit a resume I came up with on my own. I can tailor it to the employer I'm working with easily.
I don't think a standardized format prevents that. What I'm thinking of is more how you when can apply to jobs with Linkedin, it takes away factors like resume design/layout and can make the lives of hiring staff easier. Not "fill in x years of experience for Visual Studio" but more "list your jobs, what you did there. list your skills. list your education. No PDF/Word/Photoshop etc and all that. You make this resume and you apply with that to all jobs in your industry (of course with the ability to tailor it to an employer as needed).
I know someone who applied for a job at Whole Foods corporate -- they had a simple seven question questionaire that screened this way. Cool idea!
I've seen a handful of those, and I love them. Not necessarily for me, but for the people that look at the resume before me (HR, Head hunters, etc).
One thing that can take a while to remember, if you've generally ran with the "gifted" crowd in school (Read: top 10% reading comprehension scores on the SAT), is that most people are just uncomfortable reading, it takes them a lot of time, and they don't like doing it. It's almost always a good idea to shorten/simplify any text meant for an unknown audience.
I was top 1% in school and I still dislike reading, because very often, it's unnecessary verbiage.
As a senior PhD student, the advice I give my younger peers and master students regarding academic posters: you should be able to read it from across the room, or printing in A4 and held at arms' length. Most posters are horribly over-cramed.
I see the same things in academic papers. The length is limited, but many people find a way around by including tons for mathematic, which is much denser. When I take the pain to go through it, I usually find all this math to be unnecessary (but it does give the paper the halo of serious research).
As a senior PhD student, the advice I give my younger peers and master students regarding academic posters: you should be able to read it from across the room, or printing in A4 and held at arms' length. Most posters are horribly over-cramed.
I see the same things in academic papers. The length is limited, but many people find a way around by including tons for mathematic, which is much denser. When I take the pain to go through it, I usually find all this math to be unnecessary (but it does give the paper the halo of serious research).
I agree! To combat this 'jargonification' and make ourselves better writers, some of the PhD and MS students at my alma mater decided to make a journal club for well written papers. Not papers that were good science, but just well written and easy to understand (in our field). We would submit papers and then go over them at lunch once a week. We found:
1) The appropriate metric for 'well written' is that you can read the whole thing aloud and understand the findings in the time it takes a person to eat a sandwich, a bag of chips, and drink a medium coffee. About 75 minutes. Anything more may be 'read' but not understood and anything less means you should have done more work.
2) Everyone loves jargon. The more obscure words the better. The more complicated and obfuscated, the better. I find that I want to grok the research. Most of my compatriots do not want to do that. However, we all think the same thing about everyone else. More complicated papers result in a 'treasure hunt' mentality that many researchers actually enjoy, it seems. The journal club evolved into a 'tennis game' of sorts where the submitter would lord over the others about their knowledge of the paper. i don't want to generalize too much, but I think this behavior of 'one-up-man-ship' and 'I-know-more-than-yoooou-dooo' is core to academia.
1) The appropriate metric for 'well written' is that you can read the whole thing aloud and understand the findings in the time it takes a person to eat a sandwich, a bag of chips, and drink a medium coffee. About 75 minutes. Anything more may be 'read' but not understood and anything less means you should have done more work.
2) Everyone loves jargon. The more obscure words the better. The more complicated and obfuscated, the better. I find that I want to grok the research. Most of my compatriots do not want to do that. However, we all think the same thing about everyone else. More complicated papers result in a 'treasure hunt' mentality that many researchers actually enjoy, it seems. The journal club evolved into a 'tennis game' of sorts where the submitter would lord over the others about their knowledge of the paper. i don't want to generalize too much, but I think this behavior of 'one-up-man-ship' and 'I-know-more-than-yoooou-dooo' is core to academia.
Your journal club sounds cool. Is there a list somewhere of the past papers you read?
We had a dropbox, but that was only used by me. Mostly we just sent out emails to each other in a giant list. Sorry! >o
That is you.
Some personalities like long explanations, some do not.
Beware that your personality will often miss important details that would be in the verbiage.
Those or like reading often waste too much time reading unnecessary details.
There are pros and cons of both.
(I hope I wrote that in the style you would like to read)
Some personalities like long explanations, some do not.
Beware that your personality will often miss important details that would be in the verbiage.
Those or like reading often waste too much time reading unnecessary details.
There are pros and cons of both.
(I hope I wrote that in the style you would like to read)
I'm not sure. Unlike the impression I might have given, I'm actually someone that puts a lot of stock in nuance and dislike simplifications that turn away from the truth.
But when you are communicating, it is common sense to make sure the important points come across, then only dive into the details. Unfortunately that is not always something you are incentivized to do in academic research, where fumigation is the norm.
I'd also point out that one can be terse and uninformative as well - point in case: most public Git repositories out there.
I enjoy reading, and will often read long pieces -- albeit I would wish they were terser, because often they could be, with no loss of precision.
I have also never met anyone that, even though they like to read like I do, would take pleasure in reading something that drones unnecessarily. When communicating, that is -- plenty of people enjoy the mini-novels put out by Slate, the New Yorker, ... (and me too, sometimes).
I have taken to the habit to summarizing the things I read on my blog. These summaries are of course less informative than the source, but the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher.
But when you are communicating, it is common sense to make sure the important points come across, then only dive into the details. Unfortunately that is not always something you are incentivized to do in academic research, where fumigation is the norm.
I'd also point out that one can be terse and uninformative as well - point in case: most public Git repositories out there.
I enjoy reading, and will often read long pieces -- albeit I would wish they were terser, because often they could be, with no loss of precision.
I have also never met anyone that, even though they like to read like I do, would take pleasure in reading something that drones unnecessarily. When communicating, that is -- plenty of people enjoy the mini-novels put out by Slate, the New Yorker, ... (and me too, sometimes).
I have taken to the habit to summarizing the things I read on my blog. These summaries are of course less informative than the source, but the signal-to-noise ratio is much higher.
Even if you enjoy it, you're still limited by human capabilities: I've seen so many slides that were laden with dense technical information that essentially nobody could get through in the time before the presenter hit "next slide," and I've made some, too. Your goal will not let you say less than necessary; so I say you should always cut every word whose absence won't defeat you. A second is a valuable thing, and you're either writing poetry or working where the second is a unit of cost. (In the extreme, if your goal doesn't require you to write or say anything, then why get words involved at all?)
Somehow we have switch to slides/powerpoint from a more generic discussion on reading styles.
When doing a presentation there are other considerations/rules.
Those rules do not apply to the more generic discussion.
When doing a presentation there are other considerations/rules.
Those rules do not apply to the more generic discussion.
Papers are wonderful.
Posters are wonderful.
Papers aren't Posters.
Posters are wonderful.
Papers aren't Posters.
Elements of Style is very good. It can be a little prescriptive, but it's only 50-odd pages long and surprisingly fun to read.
Strunk and White are prescriptive, but at the same time the book acknowledges that mastery, and its use for effect, can replace the ideas that they generally prescribe.
> It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules.
> It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing as well, he will probably do best to follow the rules.
> mastery, and its use for effect, can replace the ideas that they generally prescribe
Is there any field for which this is not true?
Is there any field for which this is not true?
If I was a master electrician, I'd still turn the mains off?
Nuclear physics.
Just ask Louis Slotin. Oh wait. You can't.
Just ask Louis Slotin. Oh wait. You can't.
FWIW, I chuckled--this was a good pull!
A poster is only big so many people can see it at once. Otherwise it is no different than a single sheet executive summary.
Generally, people say to shorten a text because the best way to write a great text is to take a good text and cut out anything that isn't great, not because the audience has poor reading skills.
> the best way to write a great text is to take a good text and cut out anything that isn't great
This is for entertainment or marketing purposes, though.
This is for entertainment or marketing purposes, though.
Possibly, but the people reading resumes are still subject to boredom and short attention spans.
That's really difficult for me. I always end up writing novels for emails then wondering why people only answered the first question.
(and they missed out parts (b) and (c) of the question, plus they didn't read the linked web pages supporting my assertions)
Yes, I really need to cut back on how much I type there, but I have trouble communicating in person so text is just so much more comfortable for me. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
(and they missed out parts (b) and (c) of the question, plus they didn't read the linked web pages supporting my assertions)
Yes, I really need to cut back on how much I type there, but I have trouble communicating in person so text is just so much more comfortable for me. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
One thing I've done that has helped is after a single introductory sentence, list all my questions with numbered bullet points. Only put the actual question here. Any supporting info can be described in paragraphs below, numbered similarly. Aggressively edit your writing to remove all unnecessary words and information. You probably don't need 40% of the words you wrote.
If your question has multiple parts, break them into separate, sequential questions.
Lastly if the question is so complex that this doesn't work, and for whatever reason you can't talk to them in person, present them with what you believe the answer is and let them critique it. This won't always work for every scenario but it might be worth trying.
If your question has multiple parts, break them into separate, sequential questions.
Lastly if the question is so complex that this doesn't work, and for whatever reason you can't talk to them in person, present them with what you believe the answer is and let them critique it. This won't always work for every scenario but it might be worth trying.
Some ideas I've had luck with: Have one actionable item per email. State a question in the subject. Expect a clear answer (not quite "yes/no" but something definite). Spend a short time (one or two paragraphs describing the question in detail, but don't make it longer than that.
End the email with the question in the subject asked again.
EDIT: If you find that you need to have a conversation, either walk over to their desk or pick up the phone.
End the email with the question in the subject asked again.
EDIT: If you find that you need to have a conversation, either walk over to their desk or pick up the phone.
Allow me to be cynical for a moment. A big reason why people only answer the first question is they want to skip the harder ones that follow and hope the conversation will go off on a tangent instead.
Yeah, that really depends on the content of the conversation, but I have seen that tactic used in so many situations (including non-email) that I assume it as the default reason. So I limit myself to one question per email.
Yeah, that really depends on the content of the conversation, but I have seen that tactic used in so many situations (including non-email) that I assume it as the default reason. So I limit myself to one question per email.
Don't feel the need to explain everything you mean.
Some people will understand what you mean with very little. Others likely won't understand regardless of how much explanation you provide.
Make everything that is critical super obvious. Bulleted questions is a great suggestion.
Some people will understand what you mean with very little. Others likely won't understand regardless of how much explanation you provide.
Make everything that is critical super obvious. Bulleted questions is a great suggestion.
> Some people will understand what you mean with very little. Others likely won't understand regardless of how much explanation you provide.
Super true
Super true
I had this problem as well and can offer you what has worked well for me: (Would love other's input.)
1. Place most important piece at the top. Answer the following question to your audience: What is the purpose of this email and how does it apply to me?
2. Bulleted or numbered lists are ideal for multiple questions/points. It visually divides, gives you ability to order most to least important and also allows someone an easy way to respond inline to each question.
3. Iterate on your first revision with goal of reducing length and maintaining intention. This takes practice and forces you to ask do I really need this line of text.
4. If you distribute to a large list, identify at the top the scope so those it doesn't apply to can discard.
5. If you are emailing a group and you need replies or action items for different people call this out. You can do this by calling each name out: @Joe - Can you help identify x? @Jane - Can you follow up with so and so? etc. This way their name is attached to it.
1. Place most important piece at the top. Answer the following question to your audience: What is the purpose of this email and how does it apply to me?
2. Bulleted or numbered lists are ideal for multiple questions/points. It visually divides, gives you ability to order most to least important and also allows someone an easy way to respond inline to each question.
3. Iterate on your first revision with goal of reducing length and maintaining intention. This takes practice and forces you to ask do I really need this line of text.
4. If you distribute to a large list, identify at the top the scope so those it doesn't apply to can discard.
5. If you are emailing a group and you need replies or action items for different people call this out. You can do this by calling each name out: @Joe - Can you help identify x? @Jane - Can you follow up with so and so? etc. This way their name is attached to it.
I've found that leading people into a back and forth conversation where I can guide them through those same points, rather than try to get them all out at once, works better. Just go one at a time until you are sure they are on the same page.
I also try to eliminate parentheticals. Branching lines of thought are very difficult for most people.
I also try to eliminate parentheticals. Branching lines of thought are very difficult for most people.
"Branching lines of thought are very difficult for most people."
This is something that I hadn't thought about but now that you mention it, it does seem to match what I've experienced.
Nice catch.
This is something that I hadn't thought about but now that you mention it, it does seem to match what I've experienced.
Nice catch.
> Branching lines of thought are very difficult for most people.
I haven't watched it, so this question might not be relevant - but how do you explain the popularity of shows like "Game of Thrones"?
From what I gather, it has several various plot lines woven over and around multiple episodes and seasons.
People also don't seem to have any problems deciphering the various "plot lines" within their own circles of family and friends (in my experience with people who seem to have waaaay too much drama in their lives).
Is there something about "video" that makes it easier to parse in this fashion than text? Does emotional attachment to characters in such dramas (or personal involvement) make it easier to understand intertwined plot lines?
Just musing on things here...hmm.
I haven't watched it, so this question might not be relevant - but how do you explain the popularity of shows like "Game of Thrones"?
From what I gather, it has several various plot lines woven over and around multiple episodes and seasons.
People also don't seem to have any problems deciphering the various "plot lines" within their own circles of family and friends (in my experience with people who seem to have waaaay too much drama in their lives).
Is there something about "video" that makes it easier to parse in this fashion than text? Does emotional attachment to characters in such dramas (or personal involvement) make it easier to understand intertwined plot lines?
Just musing on things here...hmm.
Most people who watch GOT don't get all the plotlines. If you talk to regular showwatchers (not book), they regularly mistake Stannis for Tywin for Roose etc...They get enough of the gist to enjoy it.
I think most people enjoy GoT despite the story line. The content is otherwise quite gratuitous in the violence and sex departments, so it has a lot to offer to the most casual of observers without having a full grasp of the story line.
I would suggest you use chat platforms like slack instead of email. The flow of conversations is more obvious that way. You can then ask one question, and work parts b and c into normal interaction.
Once that's done, you can ask if they have the time to answer another question, and continue with the interaction.
Once that's done, you can ask if they have the time to answer another question, and continue with the interaction.
- After you write the novel, break it up into bullet points
- Make each bullet point actionable/respondable
- Condense the bullet points/trim the fat
- Use sub-bullets as an aside or to provide narrative/opinion/background
Now people have essentially been informed up front that you expect X number of things for them to respond to and they’ll be less likely to miss the stuff in the middle.
You’ll also find that you’ll get the same information and intent across with your TL;DR bulletpoint summary, but in a way that doesn’t cause the reader to bail out.
It’ll also make it easier for them to respond because you’ve essentially given them references names for each point they’d respond to.
- Make each bullet point actionable/respondable
- Condense the bullet points/trim the fat
- Use sub-bullets as an aside or to provide narrative/opinion/background
Now people have essentially been informed up front that you expect X number of things for them to respond to and they’ll be less likely to miss the stuff in the middle.
You’ll also find that you’ll get the same information and intent across with your TL;DR bulletpoint summary, but in a way that doesn’t cause the reader to bail out.
It’ll also make it easier for them to respond because you’ve essentially given them references names for each point they’d respond to.
One thing that really bothers me in long emails is redundancy. Something like "Only one single widget is alone on the shelf" instead of "One widget is on the shelf."
> "One widget is on the shelf."
Where are the rest of them then?
Where are the rest of them then?
1. Put yourself in the reader's shoes. Imagine getting your email in the midst of all the other emails they get, all the other things they're thinking about, all the other problems, in and out of work, that they might be dealing with.
2. Read The Elements of Style, by William Strunk and E. B. White (< 100 pages).
3. Read the first several chapters of On Writing Well, by William Zinnser (< 100 pages).
(Don't like reading? Oh :)
2. Read The Elements of Style, by William Strunk and E. B. White (< 100 pages).
3. Read the first several chapters of On Writing Well, by William Zinnser (< 100 pages).
(Don't like reading? Oh :)
I've embraced my relative youth and tried @tagging someone in an email body one time...and was surprised to learn Outlook actually supports it.
I've since started tagging people in the body for specific items I need from them. Varying levels of success, if people are on the email and see themselves tagged in a specific part of the email, they know where to read carefully and what response I expect from them.
I've since started tagging people in the body for specific items I need from them. Varying levels of success, if people are on the email and see themselves tagged in a specific part of the email, they know where to read carefully and what response I expect from them.
I struggle with this too. Sometimes I will only ask the first question, let the recipient respond, and then ask the next question. It can give the interchange a more conversational feel and some people really prefer that.
Haha so true, to me, and I'm sure a lot of others here, reading comes very naturally, it's by far the easiest way for me to consume information. I hate watching tutorial videos, for example because I'd much rather read tutorial and speed through it at my in pace. As I've started trying to be more entrepreneurial I've had to realize not everyone is like this and take this into account when dealing with others.
"I made this one [letter] longer only because I have not had the leisure to make it shorter."[1] - Blaise Pascal
The contemporary interpretation/translation of this quote is usually "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
[1] - "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte."
The contemporary interpretation/translation of this quote is usually "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
[1] - "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte."
I don’t think this is the reason, necessarily.
I think it’s for the same reason elevator pitches are short. Shorter usually equates to better written, more relevant and the the point. I guess concise is a concise way of putting it. The writer has decided what’s relevant or not, so the reader doesn’t have to.
There’s a tendency for people describing themselves (or their company, etc.) with too many loose end details. We also do this and could do that. ..not wanting to limit themselves or leave anything outside the frame.
Imagine describing your diet. You could do it in 20 words, 200, or 2000. I’m trying to sort people into diet piles. I can do it with 20 words. If you use 200, that probably means I have to trim your 200 to 20, and sort from there.
I think it’s for the same reason elevator pitches are short. Shorter usually equates to better written, more relevant and the the point. I guess concise is a concise way of putting it. The writer has decided what’s relevant or not, so the reader doesn’t have to.
There’s a tendency for people describing themselves (or their company, etc.) with too many loose end details. We also do this and could do that. ..not wanting to limit themselves or leave anything outside the frame.
Imagine describing your diet. You could do it in 20 words, 200, or 2000. I’m trying to sort people into diet piles. I can do it with 20 words. If you use 200, that probably means I have to trim your 200 to 20, and sort from there.
Also keep in mind people are lazy. The higher up the chain you go the worse it seems to get.
I recommend all e-mails to Director and above be written as if your audience is a hyperactive teenager. Go with simple statements (they don't understand nuance) and bullet points.
I recommend all e-mails to Director and above be written as if your audience is a hyperactive teenager. Go with simple statements (they don't understand nuance) and bullet points.
>It's almost always a good idea to shorten/simplify any text meant for an unknown audience.
Also, take a look at your resume and take off all acronyms unless they are well-known (eg: HTML) and reword any overly technical statement into simple words "Utilized X to lower the Y by leveraging Z technology which resulted in a 25% speed increase". Nah, do this: "Increased speed of [project] by 25% by leveraging [technology you mentioned on your resume]"
I dislike all resumes that are overly technical and I can't imagine how recruiters feel about seeing borderline non-sense.
Also, take a look at your resume and take off all acronyms unless they are well-known (eg: HTML) and reword any overly technical statement into simple words "Utilized X to lower the Y by leveraging Z technology which resulted in a 25% speed increase". Nah, do this: "Increased speed of [project] by 25% by leveraging [technology you mentioned on your resume]"
I dislike all resumes that are overly technical and I can't imagine how recruiters feel about seeing borderline non-sense.
More generally, following a couple easy, basic rules like:
1) emphasize the most important verb by putting it first, and favor more-active and more-specific verbs over very general or passive ones, as in putting "increased" ahead of "utilized" and "leveraged", and
2) favor simple language ("leverage" or "utilize" can often just be "use", for example) because, counterintuitively for middling or poor writers, simpler language usually comes off as more forceful, confident, and authoritative than fancier fluff.[1] It's also easier to read, and you're less likely to make small blunders that will bother some readers.
improves most writing significantly.
[1] Incidentally, I think high school and university paper length requirements that reward such flabby writing without without sufficiently punishing weak style choices are part of why people write that way, especially when they're trying to write "formally".
1) emphasize the most important verb by putting it first, and favor more-active and more-specific verbs over very general or passive ones, as in putting "increased" ahead of "utilized" and "leveraged", and
2) favor simple language ("leverage" or "utilize" can often just be "use", for example) because, counterintuitively for middling or poor writers, simpler language usually comes off as more forceful, confident, and authoritative than fancier fluff.[1] It's also easier to read, and you're less likely to make small blunders that will bother some readers.
improves most writing significantly.
[1] Incidentally, I think high school and university paper length requirements that reward such flabby writing without without sufficiently punishing weak style choices are part of why people write that way, especially when they're trying to write "formally".
Resume writer here.
A good one page resume is a strong signal from a candidate IMO and experience. It tells the reader "I don't need to tell you every minute detail of my career to impress you. I want to start a conversation, and I think this one page detail is enough for you to make the decision to start that conversation."
I'll write a one page resume and a longer form resume for many clients. The longer form resume can be useful during the actual interview, as it can provide the interviewer with some fodder to ask about from the applicant's experience.
A one page resume also tells the reader "I don't want to burden you with more information than you need". When an applicant sends a five-page resume to a company, there is some tacit expectation that the applicant wants the recipient to read the whole thing (otherwise, why did he/she include five pages?). That's an unnecessary burden to put on someone.
A single page resume isn't always entirely practical, but there are ways to make it work even for people with 10 or 20 years of experience. Keep in mind that a resume doesn't need to include every single job (the details of the oldest jobs of technologists tend to be almost entirely irrelevant).
The resume also has to be written with the mindset that the reader isn't likely qualified to even determine what the candidate does. You have to assume the reader (when human) is looking for keywords in the same way a machine (applicant tracking system) is, so including a summary that simplifies it for the reader is useful.
When the CTO of a startup tells the temp at the front desk "You're screening our resumes today, only send along Python developers with over five years of experience", a resume summary that begins with "Python Developer with five years of experience..." checks all the reader's boxes right away.
When writing the resume, make it as easy as possible for the reader to figure out who you are and what you do. Don't use inside baseball terms or corporate lingo that doesn't translate. Remove noise to allow hiring signal to come through.
I'll write a one page resume and a longer form resume for many clients. The longer form resume can be useful during the actual interview, as it can provide the interviewer with some fodder to ask about from the applicant's experience.
A one page resume also tells the reader "I don't want to burden you with more information than you need". When an applicant sends a five-page resume to a company, there is some tacit expectation that the applicant wants the recipient to read the whole thing (otherwise, why did he/she include five pages?). That's an unnecessary burden to put on someone.
A single page resume isn't always entirely practical, but there are ways to make it work even for people with 10 or 20 years of experience. Keep in mind that a resume doesn't need to include every single job (the details of the oldest jobs of technologists tend to be almost entirely irrelevant).
The resume also has to be written with the mindset that the reader isn't likely qualified to even determine what the candidate does. You have to assume the reader (when human) is looking for keywords in the same way a machine (applicant tracking system) is, so including a summary that simplifies it for the reader is useful.
When the CTO of a startup tells the temp at the front desk "You're screening our resumes today, only send along Python developers with over five years of experience", a resume summary that begins with "Python Developer with five years of experience..." checks all the reader's boxes right away.
When writing the resume, make it as easy as possible for the reader to figure out who you are and what you do. Don't use inside baseball terms or corporate lingo that doesn't translate. Remove noise to allow hiring signal to come through.
Even at the end of my 28 year career, my resume was only two pages. I continually edited it down. The older stuff, probably no longer relevant stuff, was reduced to just a few words. For anything older than 4 years, only a sentence describing the work is sufficient. If the interviewer is interested, they can ask.
This is the right approach. The problem with the vast majority of multi-page resumes is that the writer has an editing problem. If you can fill out 5 pages with worthwhile info, I suppose that would be fine? But if you're at the level where you can fill out 5 pages of worthwhile info, you'd be recruited directly by the CTO and your resume wouldn't come close to me.
You have to get to the CEO these days.
I have one of these five pages resume. I usually get a job offer after an interview.
I have one of these five pages resume. I usually get a job offer after an interview.
I've around +12 years of experience and my resume is one and half page. Half of that will be opensource contribution not related to any organization. If recruiter needs more info, we can always discuss that during interview itself :-)
Edit: If anyone curious about the format/layout, here its: http://www.giis.co.in/LakshmipathiG.pdf
Edit: If anyone curious about the format/layout, here its: http://www.giis.co.in/LakshmipathiG.pdf
Yes and your showing that your older than the other applicants. I really struggle with today's system from HR.
My wife wants to move back to her home state. I have over 25 years experience and I have sent out 40+ applications. Jobs I am perfect for, jobs I am under qualified for and entry level jobs. ZERO Phone Calls.
I need to just put my application like I am straight out of school.
My wife wants to move back to her home state. I have over 25 years experience and I have sent out 40+ applications. Jobs I am perfect for, jobs I am under qualified for and entry level jobs. ZERO Phone Calls.
I need to just put my application like I am straight out of school.
Is it obvious that you are currently not living locally?
Many places shy away with dealing with non-local applicants for various, often silly, reasons:
They don't want to offer/negotiate relocation expenses, don't want to deal with long distance interviews, don't have the setup/infra to give good long distance interviews, not willing to pay for travel for an in person interview, not willing to conduct only phone/video interviews, not willing to feel responsible for having an applicant pay their own expenses to travel for an interview.
Many places are not willing to consider/interview someone with those moving parts because if they don't hire them, or things don't work out after hiring them then the company/manager will feel responsible and the applicant might bad mouth the employer. Granted bad mouthing an employer after a bad hire experience can and does happen, it doesn't often have as much weight and drama as when someone "moved across the country".
It's easier for an applicant to shout "I flew across the country to interview and this company is/was a joke... they didn't hire me, and I had to pay to travel to the interview!" or "I was hired by this company and I 'moved across the country' for it and then they canned me for [stupid] reasons a, b, c, they are a joke! They 'ruined my life' Avoid them!".
Unfortunately you need to move then look for a [local] job or conceal that you are not currently a local applicant at least until to are at an in person interview.
Many places shy away with dealing with non-local applicants for various, often silly, reasons:
They don't want to offer/negotiate relocation expenses, don't want to deal with long distance interviews, don't have the setup/infra to give good long distance interviews, not willing to pay for travel for an in person interview, not willing to conduct only phone/video interviews, not willing to feel responsible for having an applicant pay their own expenses to travel for an interview.
Many places are not willing to consider/interview someone with those moving parts because if they don't hire them, or things don't work out after hiring them then the company/manager will feel responsible and the applicant might bad mouth the employer. Granted bad mouthing an employer after a bad hire experience can and does happen, it doesn't often have as much weight and drama as when someone "moved across the country".
It's easier for an applicant to shout "I flew across the country to interview and this company is/was a joke... they didn't hire me, and I had to pay to travel to the interview!" or "I was hired by this company and I 'moved across the country' for it and then they canned me for [stupid] reasons a, b, c, they are a joke! They 'ruined my life' Avoid them!".
Unfortunately you need to move then look for a [local] job or conceal that you are not currently a local applicant at least until to are at an in person interview.
My address is my In-Laws where I will be living when we move back.
Leave out the bottom 10 years and leave out your degree years -- if you have one. My software development career began at age 28 (I'm now 45). My CV begins in 2001 and makes no mention of what I was doing from 1990-2001, and makes me appear about 35-37.
When I turn up for interviews, nobody bats an eye, and all interview questions that touch on previous jobs talk about what I've been doing in the past 3 years.
When I turn up for interviews, nobody bats an eye, and all interview questions that touch on previous jobs talk about what I've been doing in the past 3 years.
I did some A/B testing over the past couple of years with dropping the 90s from my resume, and I couldn't distinguish any difference in responses. Among those who got the shortened resume, nobody seemed to notice, although it's possible they noticed the age gap and just didn't mention it.
Although if OP has sent out 40 applications and gotten no responses, ageism isn't the issue. There's something about his experience or resume that is turning people off.
Although if OP has sent out 40 applications and gotten no responses, ageism isn't the issue. There's something about his experience or resume that is turning people off.
I am working off my CV I had professional done a few years ago. Maybe I need to put some money into someone else doing it for me again.
I'm pretty ignorant of your field, so it's hard to say. As an example of my ignorance, I'm honestly surprised you could even find 40 places in a small city to apply for an uncertified Stem Lab Coach job.
In terms of resumes and job search, though, software development is completely unlike every other field. I don't think anybody's advice here on "here's how my resume of 15 years of c++ is arranged" is going to help you at all. It's a completely different world.
People complain about ageism in tech, but I suspect programming is actually one of the least ageist fields out there due to its underlying meritocratic nature.
In terms of resumes and job search, though, software development is completely unlike every other field. I don't think anybody's advice here on "here's how my resume of 15 years of c++ is arranged" is going to help you at all. It's a completely different world.
People complain about ageism in tech, but I suspect programming is actually one of the least ageist fields out there due to its underlying meritocratic nature.
> People complain about ageism in tech, but I suspect programming is actually one of the least ageist fields out there due to its underlying meritocratic nature.
I'm turning 45 years old next year; I've been employed as a software engineer since I was 18.
I've never had a problem getting a new job, whether by choice or because I had to due to a layoff or other scale back by a company. Part of the reason, I believe, is because I am always looking and working to improve my skills (my latest efforts have been in AI/ML and self-driving vehicle technology). I don't want to stagnate or otherwise get stuck in a rut, so to speak.
That doesn't mean I don't worry, but I think I may be ok as long as I'm not trying to drop into an SV startup/unicorn or one of the "big players" like Facebook or Google, that tend to hire younger players. That doesn't mean I'd turn down the chance interview at such a place, but I'm not looking in that direction (plus, I'm pretty rooted here in the Phoenix area).
I'm turning 45 years old next year; I've been employed as a software engineer since I was 18.
I've never had a problem getting a new job, whether by choice or because I had to due to a layoff or other scale back by a company. Part of the reason, I believe, is because I am always looking and working to improve my skills (my latest efforts have been in AI/ML and self-driving vehicle technology). I don't want to stagnate or otherwise get stuck in a rut, so to speak.
That doesn't mean I don't worry, but I think I may be ok as long as I'm not trying to drop into an SV startup/unicorn or one of the "big players" like Facebook or Google, that tend to hire younger players. That doesn't mean I'd turn down the chance interview at such a place, but I'm not looking in that direction (plus, I'm pretty rooted here in the Phoenix area).
Resume writer here. I'll take a look at it for free to see if the resume is an issue. Many resume writers are just writers that learned resume writing was a way to get paid if they couldn't get published, so quality varies. I have 20 years of experience in recruiting for startups, so I understand your audience quite well.
Contact info is in the profile.
Contact info is in the profile.
Getting your CV done? I'd say do it yourself. E.g. if you know LaTeX there are a lot of templates to get you started on ShareLaTeX for example.
Having just done my CV, I couldn't imagine paying someone for it - it's deeply linked to my personality and my own experiences.
Having just done my CV, I couldn't imagine paying someone for it - it's deeply linked to my personality and my own experiences.
Yeah, it is worth remembering that things are very different now, they get many times more applications for every job than used to be the case.
It's like direct mail marketing - expect a very low response.
It's like direct mail marketing - expect a very low response.
I think the relevant parts of this article are the sales parts. "You can't just sign up for their mailing list" = "you can't just apply for jobs and expect a response.
From this comment I assume you've put your resume in a giant pile 40 times. Unfortunately that's probably not going to get you the job you'd really want but you probably know this already (apologies in advance).
In general, I'd always recommend engaging with potential employers at MeetUps, email / Twitter saying you like their business and want to put your skills to use, etc - something that differentiates you from the normal "applicant." You don't need to ask them for a job - just ask them for an informational interview / discussion and if you can help. If so, they'll refer you and you'll have at minimum an inside track to the application process. If not, you're still better off than you were before.
From this comment I assume you've put your resume in a giant pile 40 times. Unfortunately that's probably not going to get you the job you'd really want but you probably know this already (apologies in advance).
In general, I'd always recommend engaging with potential employers at MeetUps, email / Twitter saying you like their business and want to put your skills to use, etc - something that differentiates you from the normal "applicant." You don't need to ask them for a job - just ask them for an informational interview / discussion and if you can help. If so, they'll refer you and you'll have at minimum an inside track to the application process. If not, you're still better off than you were before.
40+ applications?
How about picking the top 5 that you are the best culture fit for and most excited about. After that, create well written 100% custom cover letters and relevant resume. You will get a 100% response, this has worked for me in the past and is a win/win for you and the employer.
In the long run it takes about the same amount of time. Now wear the employers hat...which one are you more likely to read and then engage with?
How about picking the top 5 that you are the best culture fit for and most excited about. After that, create well written 100% custom cover letters and relevant resume. You will get a 100% response, this has worked for me in the past and is a win/win for you and the employer.
In the long run it takes about the same amount of time. Now wear the employers hat...which one are you more likely to read and then engage with?
If one intensively looking for a job is investing time and effort in only couple of openings, however one thinks a perfect match they are, is in for a very sad dissapointment.
Could you find some companies, learn about them, find some managers and cold email them personal emails?
I've always done that and I have far less experience than you.
I've always done that and I have far less experience than you.
Out of curiosity, what is your experience in?
I am a generalist, but have had success in each of these areas.
Education (But not a certified teacher) currently a STEm lab Coach for the past nine years, Systems Librarian and media creation (audio engineering and video editing). I also do a lot of statistical programming (R) for the company I work with for grants.
So I try to just make each resume simple for each job.
Education (But not a certified teacher) currently a STEm lab Coach for the past nine years, Systems Librarian and media creation (audio engineering and video editing). I also do a lot of statistical programming (R) for the company I work with for grants.
So I try to just make each resume simple for each job.
If you haven't yet, you might try getting some objective third party advice on your resume.
Similar situation, but 10 years younger, on the other side of the Atlantic, and the salaries are half of those American over here. It's not you and it's not ageism.
Suggestions: spaces after commas, and use a proper en-dash instead of a hyphen for ranges ("2006–2009") and an em-dash for punctuation-dash ("expirer — Auto-magically delete ...")
In formal writing, like a resume, I tend to shy away from such nuance. I will only use a dash for a range, if needed. Otherwise, rather than dashes or such, proper usage of commas, semicolons, and colons will usually suffice.
Informal writing gets anything and everything. I'll mix it up all over the place, but I don't differentiate between the various dashes: You'll get a single dash and like it, dang it!
:D
Informal writing gets anything and everything. I'll mix it up all over the place, but I don't differentiate between the various dashes: You'll get a single dash and like it, dang it!
:D
What is the difference between the two dashes?
They have different lengths and purposes.
There's the hyphen (-) you are used to then there's the en dash (–) and the em dash (—).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash
>An em dash (or an en dash) denotes a break in a sentence or to set off parenthetical statements.
>The en dash (but not the em dash) indicates spans or differentiation, where it may be considered to replace "and" or "to" (but not "to" in the phrase "from … to …")
>The em dash (but not the en dash) is also used to set off the sources of quotes
There's the hyphen (-) you are used to then there's the en dash (–) and the em dash (—).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash
>An em dash (or an en dash) denotes a break in a sentence or to set off parenthetical statements.
>The en dash (but not the em dash) indicates spans or differentiation, where it may be considered to replace "and" or "to" (but not "to" in the phrase "from … to …")
>The em dash (but not the en dash) is also used to set off the sources of quotes
They also have ramifications for the systems that consume them. If a system is ascii and using extended ascii then globalization presents some specific challenges around these groovy usages of the seemingly innocuous little flat line.
Length (or width, if you think in terms of width and height). An en-dash is the width of a capital N; an em-dash is the width of a capital M. (Hence the names.)
They don't have the same width (more or less visible depending on the font): the hyphen (-) is for joining, the emdash (–) is for separating. The difference in width create a different "rhythm" in text. Yes, it's subtle, as it's usually the case for typography.
As a bit of surface level feedback, taking care to correctly capitalise the names of the tools you use is a quick win for legitimacy. sqlite becomes SQLite, etc.
I can’t count the number of people I’ve seen with “mySQL” and “Javascript” on their resumes.
Correcting your use of punctuation wouldn’t hurt either.
I can’t count the number of people I’ve seen with “mySQL” and “Javascript” on their resumes.
Correcting your use of punctuation wouldn’t hurt either.
Great resume in general. However, you don't list a single quantifiable achievement in your work experience. You state what you did, but in no way provide data to describe the impact of what you did. If you'd include that, your resume would be outstanding.
Two issues with a one-page resume.
First, to get to the phone screen many companies now use some form of automation to weed out applications. Less words simply means less chance of an automated match against the job description criteria.
Second, never underestimate how lazy the HR screener is. They aren't technical, they aren't ambitious, they're generally borderline incompetent people whose sole marketable skill is that they are pleasant to talk with. If you don't spell out, in detail, that you're a Front-end Developer who uses X, Y, Z tools for N years the screener won't be able to read between the lines.
Quick example... I was in a time crunch so I asked a recruiter to find me a Front-end Dev. She came back and asked for a job description, project brief, culture brief, competitors / no hire list, and salary range. I felt like she was asking the right questions, she seemed smart. A week goes by, "Sorry, no candidates." Oh... Ok, well it's a hot market... we can up the price $5k.
Next week, "Sorry, no candidates." Hmm, that's really odd. She apologized, said she had gotten over 100 resumes, and said, "Nobody has 5 years of HTML / CSS experience listed on their resume." After a brief talk, she fundamentally didn't understand anything past a direct keyword match.
Anyway good and bad recruiters, but you never know when your resume is going to end up in the hands of someone really junior. Better to have everything spelled out. Better to be explicit around what you did with each past job. Generally the posted job description is all the recruiter is going off of to match you, so it's easy to tune your resume to fit.
* Optimize Your Resume and Boost Interview Chances - Jobscan || https://www.jobscan.co/
First, to get to the phone screen many companies now use some form of automation to weed out applications. Less words simply means less chance of an automated match against the job description criteria.
Second, never underestimate how lazy the HR screener is. They aren't technical, they aren't ambitious, they're generally borderline incompetent people whose sole marketable skill is that they are pleasant to talk with. If you don't spell out, in detail, that you're a Front-end Developer who uses X, Y, Z tools for N years the screener won't be able to read between the lines.
Quick example... I was in a time crunch so I asked a recruiter to find me a Front-end Dev. She came back and asked for a job description, project brief, culture brief, competitors / no hire list, and salary range. I felt like she was asking the right questions, she seemed smart. A week goes by, "Sorry, no candidates." Oh... Ok, well it's a hot market... we can up the price $5k.
Next week, "Sorry, no candidates." Hmm, that's really odd. She apologized, said she had gotten over 100 resumes, and said, "Nobody has 5 years of HTML / CSS experience listed on their resume." After a brief talk, she fundamentally didn't understand anything past a direct keyword match.
Anyway good and bad recruiters, but you never know when your resume is going to end up in the hands of someone really junior. Better to have everything spelled out. Better to be explicit around what you did with each past job. Generally the posted job description is all the recruiter is going off of to match you, so it's easy to tune your resume to fit.
* Optimize Your Resume and Boost Interview Chances - Jobscan || https://www.jobscan.co/
> First, to get to the phone screen many companies now use some form of automation to weed out applications. Less words simply means less chance of an automated match against the job description criteria.
Came here to post this. A lot of modern ATS systems (especially if you're jumping through a recruiter or applying to a large enough company) will screen for keywords.
I've always maintained a 2 page CV, one page with the relevant experience pieces/qualitative info, and another page with "Skills", which is essentially keyword fodder. Granted, especially earlier in my career, I got invited to interview for roles that were well out of my league.
Came here to post this. A lot of modern ATS systems (especially if you're jumping through a recruiter or applying to a large enough company) will screen for keywords.
I've always maintained a 2 page CV, one page with the relevant experience pieces/qualitative info, and another page with "Skills", which is essentially keyword fodder. Granted, especially earlier in my career, I got invited to interview for roles that were well out of my league.
> Second, never underestimate how lazy the HR screener is. They aren't technical, they aren't ambitious, they're generally borderline incompetent people whose sole marketable skill is that they are pleasant to talk with.
There are a lot of HR people in the world, that is a bit of a generalisation, don't you think? I'm sure there are lots of great HR people, and lots of incompetent HR people, just like any other job.
There are a lot of HR people in the world, that is a bit of a generalisation, don't you think? I'm sure there are lots of great HR people, and lots of incompetent HR people, just like any other job.
HR is not 'like any other job'. Google's internal analysis of what HR practices yielded top tech performers strongly disproved most longstanding HR maxims, like hire from the best schools, with highest GPAs, etc. AFAIK, very few of the HR services used by most large corps have integrated much less acknowledged this sea change in tech HR nor integrated some of those lessons in their daily practices. Their hallmark MO continues to be: grep for keywords.
So I'd agree with only the middle of your last sentence.
So I'd agree with only the middle of your last sentence.
I can count on one hand the number of good recruiters I've worked with over the years. Generally they view it all as a numbers game, spam over candidates until one sticks. They won't go out of their way to understand things is what I meant by "ambitious" there... If a candidate is thinking, "Well, my resume is basically just a link to my GitHub profile," or, "I have all these awesome references on LinkedIn..." I would caution them to not rely on HR people going that extra step to get the info -- it should all be on the resume or it's probably not going to get looked at.
I could count on one hand the number of good recruiters I have worked with and the number of Voltron lion robots.
Every second I spent talking to a recruiter has been an absolutely unmitigated waste of time. And they always try to waste so much of my time, too. They always seem to want to "touch base" and "reach out", or try to mine my contact list for other prospects. It didn't take long for me to figure out that they care not at all about my outcome, and overwhelmingly prefer quantity over quality.
Every second I spent talking to a recruiter has been an absolutely unmitigated waste of time. And they always try to waste so much of my time, too. They always seem to want to "touch base" and "reach out", or try to mine my contact list for other prospects. It didn't take long for me to figure out that they care not at all about my outcome, and overwhelmingly prefer quantity over quality.
There are a lot of HR people in the world, that is a bit of a generalisation, don't you think?
When I run across an outlier, I’ll let you know; seriously. But after twenty-five years, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
(Remember that parent said “screener”, not “VP of HR w/25 years experience”. And even the VP can be a waste of good office space sometimes.)
When I run across an outlier, I’ll let you know; seriously. But after twenty-five years, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
(Remember that parent said “screener”, not “VP of HR w/25 years experience”. And even the VP can be a waste of good office space sometimes.)
There are definitely some that at least have tact and respect for the skills that developers have. I won't talk to any that don't come across in this way immediately. If they are all about buzzwords and clearly haven't taken anytime to understand what software development is about they deserve to be blackballed
[deleted]
I don't think so, I think he is spot on. If you have more skills, you do something else.
I had some great recruiters to work with, but they move up fairly quickly.
I had some great recruiters to work with, but they move up fairly quickly.
I am an engineer who had to do many interviews and before conducting interviews I always look at the resume. In my opinion, I rather have 6 pages resume than 1-2 page with so low information that I have no idea what really was done in the last 10 years of this person. That being said, the first page should give the core idea to pursue the reading, but once you have reached the first scan I am in favor bigger resume than a thin one.
I'm also an engineer who has had to interview. My question to you is: how do you filter through 100 people each with 6 pages resumes? I'd rather have 1 page, 2 max, because I have to filter through a bunch of people in a short amount of time.
I did the math once and for the initial filter which was the resume scan, I and another person gave about 1 1/2 minutes per applicant and it still took an hour! I doubt in the future I'll get any more time so please make it scannable in ~1 1/2 minutes.
I did the math once and for the initial filter which was the resume scan, I and another person gave about 1 1/2 minutes per applicant and it still took an hour! I doubt in the future I'll get any more time so please make it scannable in ~1 1/2 minutes.
Would you rather spend an extra minute or two on the resume scan or an extra half an hour in the interview only to find that a month after you hired them, they're incapable of doing the job?
Careful where you think you're wasting time and effort.
Careful where you think you're wasting time and effort.
Here's the problem with long resumes. Most people don't have anything useful to say. Most of the time when I see a resume of any length, they contain very little useful information. Longer resumes just make it worse. Now, there are ones that describe a project in detail, and you're like "Wow, that's really amazing." Most of the ones I've seen in the programming space are more akin to the 3 paragraph long description of writing stored procedures for a database. I include myself in this group, and that's why I keep it short.
Having a short resume is also a test I use. The hardest paper I ever wrote was in an advanced Psychology class where we had to perform some sort of analysis on a character in a book. The paper had to be at most 4 pages, for something that could have easily taken 10 or more. Understanding how to communicate effectively is one of the best skills that people can have. Do I discount people immediately for not being able to do this? No, but it is something I take note of when I see it.
Having a short resume is also a test I use. The hardest paper I ever wrote was in an advanced Psychology class where we had to perform some sort of analysis on a character in a book. The paper had to be at most 4 pages, for something that could have easily taken 10 or more. Understanding how to communicate effectively is one of the best skills that people can have. Do I discount people immediately for not being able to do this? No, but it is something I take note of when I see it.
The first litmus test in this situation is "Is this 6 page resume an engaging read that delivers everything useful effectively?"
If it doesn't and that is important to you, this isn't your person.
Equally, are you discounting this person just because you can't be bothered to spend an extra couple of minutes parsing their resume which upon closer inspection is solid gold?
Being concise and communicating effectively doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.
If it doesn't and that is important to you, this isn't your person.
Equally, are you discounting this person just because you can't be bothered to spend an extra couple of minutes parsing their resume which upon closer inspection is solid gold?
Being concise and communicating effectively doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.
You would not believe how many resumes I've seen with things like formatting issues and misspellings. I'm picky about getting technical terms correctly, but I understand that everyone might not know there are capital letters in random places in words. If you're going to misspell something, at least be consistent (no joke, I've seen resumes with JavaScript, Javascript and Java Script, and like three sentences apart from each other). Going through 6 pages of that along with phrasing issues is brutally draining. If you have a long resume, give a summary or something of each entry, so I can choose to see if what you are describing is what I'm looking for. With all that being said, I'm pretty forgiving. I understand that if you have English as a second language, you might not know all the nuances to grammar. I get it. I try and give some flexibility.
So here's the thing, with all that in mind, you ask if I can't be bothered, no I can't. Just because someone spews something on a page and calls it a resume does not mean that I should take a look at it. Have some pride in what you send to people. Yes writing resumes suck, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't work at creating it. People say, "I don't know about design", or "I'm not a writer."
1. It's not that hard to understand the basics of design and layout. Buy a book. Read a website. Download a template off the internet. 2. Ask someone to look at it before you send it.
It doesn't have to be great, but it least make it look like you care enough about what you do to make it decent.
So here's the thing, with all that in mind, you ask if I can't be bothered, no I can't. Just because someone spews something on a page and calls it a resume does not mean that I should take a look at it. Have some pride in what you send to people. Yes writing resumes suck, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't work at creating it. People say, "I don't know about design", or "I'm not a writer."
1. It's not that hard to understand the basics of design and layout. Buy a book. Read a website. Download a template off the internet. 2. Ask someone to look at it before you send it.
It doesn't have to be great, but it least make it look like you care enough about what you do to make it decent.
You bring up a good point. My counterpoints:
1. Decision fatigue - A longer resume doesn't make the choice easier, it makes it harder because now I have more to compare and contrast more.
2. Half-life of knowledge - I did computer vision about 5 years ago, but I leave it off my current resume because I know the field has changed so dramatically since I last did it that my knowledge of it is out of date.
1. Decision fatigue - A longer resume doesn't make the choice easier, it makes it harder because now I have more to compare and contrast more.
2. Half-life of knowledge - I did computer vision about 5 years ago, but I leave it off my current resume because I know the field has changed so dramatically since I last did it that my knowledge of it is out of date.
I think your comment about computer vision illustrates what's wrong with this industry. If you were able to do computer vision 5 years ago you should be able to get up to speed now. This attitude doesn't allow most of to build a decent resume but instead we have to chase the latest tech all the time and none of our experience counts. For example I would prefer someone who worked on a big complex web site ten years ago with the tools available then over someone who has done a simple web site with the latest React version.
The half-life of knowledge is in the eye of the beholder. The field may have changed dramatically, the technology may have moved on. But much of what we know about how to design computer programs today hasn't changed as much as you think in 50 years. Frameworks have changed, architectures have changed, paradigms have remained very similar. Paradigms are the important part. Be as careful with what you choose to leave out as what you choose to include.
Hello,
I would say that if you need to look at 100 for each position open that the HR people are not doing their job to filter it down enough for you. For each open position, I can understand that engineer that does interview may have a dozen or more but 100 seems to be quite huge. Again, I am targeting an engineer position here, not HR or a manager.
About 1-2 page, nothing forces you to read through all the 6 pages. If the first page is not a fit, then move on. In my experience, a single page often lead to me to have to dig way more on the person to try to find anything related to this one -- not sure that a time saver.
About 1-2 page, nothing forces you to read through all the 6 pages. If the first page is not a fit, then move on. In my experience, a single page often lead to me to have to dig way more on the person to try to find anything related to this one -- not sure that a time saver.
Not disagreeing with what you said, but a lot of multi page resumes I've seen are formatted poorly and have a lot of unhelpful fluff. More pages are fine as long as the info stays relevant.
A skill someone used 10+ years ago but not since probably has little to no relevance in an interview. I was doing Java in 1995, don't ask me about it now tho'...
That is highly dependent on the skill. I haven't troubleshot a circuit board (much) since 2006, but if you put me in front of one with a schematic and some test equipment I sure as hell could do it again right now. I haven't written signal processing code since 2012, but I could jump right back into that as well.
Not all skills and experiences wither at the same rate. This industry has a bad habit of assuming all skills last about as long as your average JavaScript framework. I'm sick of being typecast based on what I have been doing for the past few years.
Not all skills and experiences wither at the same rate. This industry has a bad habit of assuming all skills last about as long as your average JavaScript framework. I'm sick of being typecast based on what I have been doing for the past few years.
I tend to like to see more information that is more recent but is also interesting to see the journey of someone. You can get something interesting by knowing that someone is able to switch language without problem or maybe this person is more the type that doesn't change at all. It's also great to see a long track of achievements even if it's been 15 years. Again, information like knowing that someone has been doing technical positions for x amount of year and now is more in a leadership position can give a good idea where the person is moving and what he still could do or understand but has changed in term of priority. Again, every resume should filter the content as its age but someone in the industry for 30 years shouldn't fit everything on 2 pages in my opinion.
As long as it's not the same paragraph repeated 10 times over 6 pages. We see a lot of people, for some reason especially those from big banks, who pretty much write "wrote stored procedures, gathered requirements, wrote unit tests" 10 times.
My favorite resumes are the ones that make me curious about the person and show some enthusiasm but that requires a good writer.
My favorite resumes are the ones that make me curious about the person and show some enthusiasm but that requires a good writer.
It's really amazing how many resumes I see that have basic spelling and grammar mistakes in them. Like on the order of, damn the squiggle underlines in Word, full steam ahead.
I mostly try to stay away from the more aggravating and useless of grammar pedantry, but it's just not a good signal about diligence and attention to detail.
I mostly try to stay away from the more aggravating and useless of grammar pedantry, but it's just not a good signal about diligence and attention to detail.
We did a study on 700 candidates applying for a graduate role, putting CV sift in parallel with work sample and situational judgement testing.
The CV scoring was entirely uncorrelated with who went on to do well (in fact it was slightly negative but not statistically relevant).
That said, graduate level roles suffer from the behavioural/motivational disconnect between education and the workplace. I'd love to do another study with more senior hires.
In case anyone's bothered we wrote it up here https://medium.com/finding-needles-in-haystacks/putting-appl...
The CV scoring was entirely uncorrelated with who went on to do well (in fact it was slightly negative but not statistically relevant).
That said, graduate level roles suffer from the behavioural/motivational disconnect between education and the workplace. I'd love to do another study with more senior hires.
In case anyone's bothered we wrote it up here https://medium.com/finding-needles-in-haystacks/putting-appl...
I like to have two resumes.
One is optimized for getting past HR and screeners. It should check the boxes the job posting has, and leave out anything that indicates your age, unless they specifically ask for 10+ years of experience.
The other a longer, more detailed one to hand your interviewer during the interview in case they want to talk about specific experiences more.
Either way - you're always gambling here. You can't read the personality on the other side of a job post. Even if that job post looks like the best dev manager in the world wrote it (and that may be the case even) it doesn't mean that applications don't go through the screener who's also handling the hires for janitor, marketing rep, and help desk. It could also be going directly to that manager, and they may have a preference for detail.
One is optimized for getting past HR and screeners. It should check the boxes the job posting has, and leave out anything that indicates your age, unless they specifically ask for 10+ years of experience.
The other a longer, more detailed one to hand your interviewer during the interview in case they want to talk about specific experiences more.
Either way - you're always gambling here. You can't read the personality on the other side of a job post. Even if that job post looks like the best dev manager in the world wrote it (and that may be the case even) it doesn't mean that applications don't go through the screener who's also handling the hires for janitor, marketing rep, and help desk. It could also be going directly to that manager, and they may have a preference for detail.
I too have multiple resumes - in pdf, odt, txt. I simultanously keep them up to date and consistent so that when the recruitment system has obnoxious requirements I simply copy paste into the fields from the txt version. One is simply unable to win this game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicant_tracking_system
Applicant Tracking Systems have arguably been a disaster for humans seeking positions in larger organizations. Taleo etc are laughably basic and typically miss valuable candidates because they work on 90's era keyword loading...I know this having hired for lots of positions in a couple of large companies. You can copy all the keywords in a job application, stuff your resume with them and the ATS will pick up the resume as 'valuable'
I can't say anything positive about the vast majority of HR organizations, who are mostly just sitting in the management meetings waiting for instructions to fire or hire and have virtually no influence outside that...
Applicant Tracking Systems have arguably been a disaster for humans seeking positions in larger organizations. Taleo etc are laughably basic and typically miss valuable candidates because they work on 90's era keyword loading...I know this having hired for lots of positions in a couple of large companies. You can copy all the keywords in a job application, stuff your resume with them and the ATS will pick up the resume as 'valuable'
I can't say anything positive about the vast majority of HR organizations, who are mostly just sitting in the management meetings waiting for instructions to fire or hire and have virtually no influence outside that...
Are people intentionally crafting their resume in such a way that the first page(ish?) could essentially be read as a standalone thing -noting the highlights and main points. Then the remaining pages would, in a sense re-state some of what the initial page has but drill down and provide more detail. Is that a good approach to take?
That's pretty much what I did. Top half of first page: summary of skills. Remaining half covered most recent employment. 25 years ago that was the suggested format and I never saw any need for change.
I tried to leave out the tech stack acronyms except for listing 3 or 4 on the bottom of the resume which I had experience and wanted to continue with. I was asked for an updated resume so HR or recruiter could tell what I actually worked on and the technology.
That's essentially what I do. First page is all I expect the interviewer to read. My resume is 2 pages for >10 years of experience.
I agressively delete unrelated skills and promote related skills based on the job description.
I agressively delete unrelated skills and promote related skills based on the job description.
If you're writing your first page as a standalone thing though that matches what the posting is looking for, do you think you need to eliminate unrelated things on the remaining pages?
Yeah, I wasn't super clear about my scenario. I have a "all skills" resume and I pare that down for each job.
I changed my long resume last year to a one-page, largely graphical one, but it hasn't performed well. Might be going back to the old one.
Got an application from a developer that looked terrible. Was ready to dismiss it, when I happened to notice there were patterns to the garbage, and it was really too terrible for anyone. Asked her to send me the original and I found the culprit:
It was two columns.
That was all it took to throw off the resume parser at Indeed of all places. So what you're doing will be hopelessly destroyed by any resume parser out there. That is likely the reason for the performance.
It was two columns.
That was all it took to throw off the resume parser at Indeed of all places. So what you're doing will be hopelessly destroyed by any resume parser out there. That is likely the reason for the performance.
There’s no reliable way to parse a resume, mine is a pdf, and almost all sites ask for additional fields anyway.
Just read this again. Are you telling me job sites are trying to parse resumes and deleting the originals?
> one-page
very good
> largely graphical
dear god no.
I've been a designer for 12 years and have no trouble getting hired, and my resume is basically 100% letters. The people who let infographic gimmicks distract them from traditional indicators of competence are not people you want to work for, generally.
very good
> largely graphical
dear god no.
I've been a designer for 12 years and have no trouble getting hired, and my resume is basically 100% letters. The people who let infographic gimmicks distract them from traditional indicators of competence are not people you want to work for, generally.
It has logos next to matching text, is that a problem?
While one pager resumes are the standard advice (and yet not many people know that), I see that the author of this article is biased towards the resume skills of a person.
You are not judging the person on his technical merits and suitability of the role but rather his resume skills. Unless the role you are hiring for is creating resumes.
Again, "tell me why I should hire you and in plain english" is just a bad question and a bad intent. You as an interviewer need to judge that and rather say here is why you should join.
You are not judging the person on his technical merits and suitability of the role but rather his resume skills. Unless the role you are hiring for is creating resumes.
Again, "tell me why I should hire you and in plain english" is just a bad question and a bad intent. You as an interviewer need to judge that and rather say here is why you should join.
Opinions are like...
Well, here's mine, on qualities of a good resume:
Well, here's mine, on qualities of a good resume:
- consistent style
- no complete sentences (too verbose especially w/ consistency)
- everything relevant listed
- good organization, most relevant things first
- LaTeX or markdown for consistent formatting in your output
- no typos
- nice resume paper (a nice touch)
I thought about using markdown for my resume but I was afraid that nobody would know what it was.
At my current job I have found one person that knows what markdown is. Could you go into more detail for me please?
At my current job I have found one person that knows what markdown is. Could you go into more detail for me please?
I use LaTeX, a document markup language, for my and my wife's resume. (The resumes come out very nice.)
Markdown can be used to output to LaTeX, but I haven't built a build-chain that takes markdown and puts it into my prefered resume style yet.
I'd like to build one, though, but I'm still not sure what type of markdown to use.
If you're a developer applying directly to a hiring manager who is also a developer, and you're going to bypass traditional HR, you might try a resume preformatted as markdown, which seems to be what you thought I meant, but I think that would be a bit nichey - meaning it probably won't work in most situations.
Markdown can be used to output to LaTeX, but I haven't built a build-chain that takes markdown and puts it into my prefered resume style yet.
I'd like to build one, though, but I'm still not sure what type of markdown to use.
If you're a developer applying directly to a hiring manager who is also a developer, and you're going to bypass traditional HR, you might try a resume preformatted as markdown, which seems to be what you thought I meant, but I think that would be a bit nichey - meaning it probably won't work in most situations.
> Tell me, in simple English, what you have to offer and why I should hire you.
What does this look like, exactly?
Edit: Surely it looks different if I were to hand it to a hiring manager vs a machine reading resumes, yes? What are examples of both?
What does this look like, exactly?
Edit: Surely it looks different if I were to hand it to a hiring manager vs a machine reading resumes, yes? What are examples of both?
I wish this article got into:
1. how to find the hiring manager for a role (take a wild stab on LinkedIn)?
2. after that, reach out to them directly on LinkedIn and reference the job listing? Attempt to guess their email format and cold email?
1. how to find the hiring manager for a role (take a wild stab on LinkedIn)?
2. after that, reach out to them directly on LinkedIn and reference the job listing? Attempt to guess their email format and cold email?
I think if your item #1 were a reality, HR departments would mysteriously get more jobs filled quicker, and with likely more appropriately-matched candidates. And, yet, HR systems and processes seemed designed as the article notes, to block the "flood" of candidates. It is silly really, and I agree with you 100%!
Along the same vein, how do you even address a cover letter if you don't know the name of the hiring manager? I always felt like "To the Attention of the Hiring Manager" was cheesy and impersonal.
not matter how pretty you format your CV you'll sit at and interview wondering why the interviewer is looking an mangled up piece of paper which turns out to be your CV.
Also recruiters that have a form with 10 textareas (for you to fill out career history) are the worst.
Also recruiters that have a form with 10 textareas (for you to fill out career history) are the worst.
1. Tell why you aren't a fit.
2. Tell why you are an exceptional fit.
3. Tell where you can see your work.
I have not spent five years working with Docker tooling. I do have experience with ___, ___ and ___ and if you've used ____, _____ and _____ (in this case on Android) you've used my work.
80% interview rate.
2. Tell why you are an exceptional fit.
3. Tell where you can see your work.
I have not spent five years working with Docker tooling. I do have experience with ___, ___ and ___ and if you've used ____, _____ and _____ (in this case on Android) you've used my work.
80% interview rate.
You are saying out of 5 online applications you get all interviews, and that is absolute falsehood. 20% interview rate would be a miracle with Taleo bullshit
Maybe you are in a field not taught directly in schools or in some other way specialized and prized field, but don't flaunt your anecdotal evidence around like a puffed up bird. If that is the norm then I am a pineapple with hurt fee fees.
Maybe you are in a field not taught directly in schools or in some other way specialized and prized field, but don't flaunt your anecdotal evidence around like a puffed up bird. If that is the norm then I am a pineapple with hurt fee fees.
> 80% interview rate.
What does this mean? 80% interview pass? 80% successful hires as manager/interviewer?
What does this mean? 80% interview pass? 80% successful hires as manager/interviewer?
[deleted]
I'm confident you will improve that rate if you move #1 to #3. It's a form of the halo effect, where we over-weight the beginning of a sentence, paragraph, document, etc.
One page CV, not more not less than that!
I read a lot of resumes. I only ever read the first page, and only up to the first bad spelling error.
I like nice typo. Easily adds 30% pages.
If a website looks like its from the '90s I don't care what the content says. I'm going on to the next thing.
If that's true, then why are you here at HN? The UI is little different than Slashdot from 20 years ago.
This is so true. And I have to wonder why companies allow this nonsense? I'm usually left wondering who is the average "recruiter"?
They are amongst the most clueless, unprofessional and inefficient people working at these tech companies. And yet they have one of the most important jobs there.
This is not to say all are like this as there are some excellent recruiters out there but I would say that overwhelmingly most are not.
I feel like the majority of "recruiters" fall into one of two camps. The first is not actually an employee but a contractor, who hops from one company to another and so has no real vested interest the process or how they represent the company.
The second I think is a HR generalist for whom "recruiting" is just another responsibility along with all their other daily exigencies.
Either one of those generally results in a suboptimal experience for both the candidate and the company.
We often hear about how hard it is to find good people. I don't think there's a talent shortage problem, I think there's a recruiter problem.
The deep irony is that these are the very same companies who seek to disrupt and/or exploit some market inefficiency. That mentality of innovation seems to exclude their own hiring process though.